Genitalia vs Chromosomes: what makes you male of female?

I guess I am different in that I respect all those who are good and kind and considerate of others regardless of skin colour, sexual orientation or abilities

 

What am I to translate for you? What don't you get?

And nope, the only people I put on ignore is those wanting to normalize pedophilia and people that consistently are disingenuous and will twist and spin and cut up people posts in order to make strawman arguments. So sorry, you're going to have to put ME on ignore if you want to push your agenda without any pushback. But did you seriously think that linking to an obviously biased site when talking about science was going to work for you? lol

 

Respect is earned. Not given. I'll follow the Golden Rule. But that doesn't mean I have to respect anyone that hasn't earned it. And I sure as hell will not respect anyone that demands that I call them something that reality shows that they are not. I don't do demands towards me very well.

 

So is an XY person born with a vagina a female?

 

Is it? Yes, I know I am arguing both sides here, but in the end, I am arguing over the point not a given position. I am not making the claim that a chromosomal variation is a thrid or fourth sex. However, if the argument given, as per Vman, is that 99.9% is A or B, then there has to be at least a C if not a D or even E for that remaining .1%. However, it has no more been proven that these variations do indeed constitute a third sex. That can only hold true if Vman's initial argument holds true. But if his initial argument is false, then each variation can be placed in either male or female. Which, once again, brings us back to the question of what is the deciding factor or factors in what constitutes those two "conditions", for lack of a better word

 

Since sex does not affect the genus or even the species of an organism, I can only guess that you are trying to provide a distraction here. Further, Homo is the genus. So either you mean what species of Homo are they (which is still faulty on the sex aspect), or you are trying to ask what genus of Hominini they are. Sapien would be the species, which is one of 18 recorded species for the genus Homo.

 

Corrected it to what our actual claims are. If you are making the claim that only 99.9% are male or female, then that has to be the case. Otherwise 100% would be male or female, even if there are variations within those two categories. Even at 99.99% being male or female, that still leaves .01% at being over 800k people who are not male or female.

 

Neither of those are part of the scientific classification system he referenced.

 

It can't be binary if only 99.9% are male or female. That number by default includes at least a 3rd possibility within that .1% if not more.

 

You were the one who asserted that there was .1% of the human population that was neither male or female. You tell us what's else there is.

 

Since intersex includes conditions such as where the ureathal opening in somewhere on the shaft and not the head of the penis, you need to come up with something else for a third sex label. Such a person would be male....well depending on what the deciding factor(s) are. We haven't settled that question yet either, from either side.

 

What you are referring to here seem to be gender based not sex based. Last I checked this thread is about biological sex, not gender.

 

The thread is about biological sex. Whether gender and sex as labels are referring to the same thing or different things is a whole other topic. This thread topic can be addressed without needing to cover that topic.

 

This is still you moving into the realm of gender. Gender is not the actual topic. Don't let the others pull you off the track.

 

Not consistently, which is why the questions exist. If the chromosomes are the determining factor, then the XY person is a male even if they are born with a vagina. However, if it is the genitalia that is the determining factor, then the XY person is female because they were born with a vagina (CAIS). If SRY presence is the factor, then the XX person is male if one of their X's has an SRY gene that attached to it. If a specific combination of the three or even just any two are the determining factor then there is definitely more than two sexes since there are more than two combinations.

 

Sure if you want to get highly specific about particular syndromes.

Whatever happens where a man's or a woman's genitalia does not develop into a normal male or female, it is due to an error in the genetic structure. That could be DNA/gene/and or chromosomal.

Regardless of the specificity of the disorder, syndrome or defect...it is still a function of binary male and female function.

No matter how you try and twist the nonsense, you are either male, or a female, or something went wrong and you are a weird amalgamation of those binary results.

 

Then perhaps you should tell that to the people I'm responding to.

 

No I didn't, but I'd be glad to answer.

There is male.

There is female.

There are genetic defects that take on various degrees of male and female. That's why they're called INTERsex.

 

Then they are NOT male or female but a third category.

 

LoL "sees no conflict" when saying "gender is a social construct" and "Gender identity (an individual’s perception of being male or female) and sexual orientation (heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality) are programmed into our brain during early development" a few minutes later.

Truly fascinating how the leftist mind operates.

 

Yes, a third category of disorders. Genetic failures. Abnormalities. Errors in the genetic code composed of failed amounts of male and female.

 

Quote the ad hominem attack.

You can think you won by arguing against your own initial argument if you want.

If you'd like to identify as winning the debate, go right ahead if it helps you somehow.

 

Nope.

 

Yes. Gender is determined at conception. It never changes.

 

Then that amalgamation is a third sex then, if it is not specifically male and not specifically female. We are still back to the point that if we do not have 100% of the populations as either male or female, then there has to be a third at the least. If the number is 100%, then what is the deciding factor? That is what the OP question asks.

I did, or did you not notice that. At the very least I specifically addressed Bowerbird about that. Both of you needed to be hauled back to the main topic.

You are right, and I apologize. It was independenthinker, who has since been banned or suspended. Which is a bummer because I really wanted to hear how they resolved the conflict of their assertions.

Yeah, intersex doesn't exactly mean that, especially since there are intersex conditions where there is no conflict. However, then that still shows that there is a third sex, or more, that has some kind of blending of the two.We're still back to if it is not A or B then there has to be a C. Is it your assertion that 100% of the human population falls under male or female, or do you assert that the exceptions are neither male nor female?